Utah Supreme Court: codefendants each liable for full restitution for damages they proximately caused

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court on Sept. 25 affirmed a district court order requiring two codefendants to be held jointly and severally liable for $10,061.32 in restitution to Walmart, holding that the Crime Victims Restitution Act requires each defendant to pay the “entire amount of pecuniary damages that are proximately caused to each victim by the criminal conduct of the defendant.” (Utah Code § 77-38b-205(1)(a)(ii)).

The ruling resolves whether sentencing courts may apportion restitution among criminal codefendants using comparative-fault principles. Justice Petersen, writing for a unanimous court (Chief Justice Durrant and Justices Pearce, Hagen and Pohlman joined), said the Act’s plain language and recent statutory changes require joint and several liability when multiple defendants proximately cause the same losses.

Background: William Bisset Debrok pleaded guilty to two third-degree felonies for taking part in a recurring scheme to steal merchandise from Walmart. In his plea agreement, the parties agreed Walmart’s pecuniary losses totaled $10,061.32 and that Debrok would “split” restitution with his codefendant. At sentencing Debrok asked the court to apportion the restitution evenly under comparative-fault principles, saying his codefendant was the “primary actor” in many transactions. The district court instead ordered both defendants jointly and severally liable for the full amount and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Why the court rejected apportionment: The opinion explains that prior appellate precedent (State v. McBride) had barred comparative-fault apportionment in restitution orders, but the court concluded McBride’s premise had been abrogated by later civil-law developments (Graves v. North Eastern Services, Inc.) and by substantive amendments to the Restitution Act in 2021 that removed the statutory tie to civil damages and directed courts to order restitution for the “entire amount” a defendant proximately caused. Justice Petersen wrote, “We conclude that this provision of the Act requires each defendant to pay restitution for all of the damages the defendant proximately caused,” and that reading best implements the legislature’s instruction to “fully compensate” victims and to place insolvency risk on at-fault parties rather than on victims (citing Utah Code § 77-38b-205(2)(a)).

The court noted the 2021 legislative amendments removed language that had expressly tied criminal restitution to recoverable civil damages and eliminated the prior statutory structure that allowed courts to impose less-than-complete restitution based on a defendant’s ability to pay. Those changes, the opinion says, make the Restitution Act the specific statutory framework governing criminal restitution and support reading “entire amount” to require joint and several liability.

Scope and limits: The court emphasized that the holding does not mean victims may obtain double recovery; joint and several liability operates only until the victim receives the total amount owed, and established principles disfavor double recovery. The opinion cites Hexcel Corp. v. Labor Commission as an example of the courts’ general aversion to double recovery.

Practical effect: The decision instructs sentencing courts in Utah that, absent a plea agreement to the contrary, they must order each defendant to pay the full amount of pecuniary damages the defendant proximately caused, even if those amounts overlap with damages another defendant is also ordered to pay. The court affirmed the district court’s restitution order in full.

The case is State of Utah v. William Bisset Debrok, No. 20240075 (Utah Sept. 25, 2025).